Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Might be a joke, I mean, it's written by a woman. But piss funny nonetheless.A domestic discipline marriage is one in which one partner in the marriage is given authority over the other and has the means to enforce the authority, usually by spanking.
I wouldn't be so sure. I haven't met any personally but I would not at all be shocked to find that this is the case in more than a few marriages. Hell, at my brother's wedding I had to choke down multiple "BULLSHIT!"'s because the preacher was going on and on and on about how the way to a happy marriage is with the woman serving her husband.Twoyboy wrote:Might be a joke, I mean, it's written by a woman. But piss funny nonetheless.
Speaking as someone who engages in BDSM, there really isn't any parallel, unless you're referring to failed BDSM relationships between people who should know better. It's the difference between play and reality, or role-playing and the Gorean lifestyle. The watchwords "safe, sane and consensual" are there for a reason. It goes without saying that all three are violated by this sort of contract.Sir Sirius wrote:Sounds like a BDSM role-playing manual to me.
...then the right to that willingness can't be revoked, which as I understand things is how the Domestic Discipline contract really works. If both partners are willing at that specific time, it says nothing of what they'd think at a later date.Mobiboros wrote:It's not really shocking to find out there's books about it. But, really, the thing is in the title. /Consensual/ Christian Domectic Discipline.
If both partners are willing... *shrug*
The acronym implies limits that, in this Domestic Discipline thing, don't exist. That's the rub. I have no problem recognizing the aspect of dominance and submission in the CCDD relationship - it could hardly be more overt. But the connotations of BDSM nowadays go well beyond the words of the abbreviation, hence my statement.People are wierdos. While someone else says this is not BDSM it really is, just taken as a lifestyle rather than partitioned off into playtime.
I only know what I read in the book jacket summary in the link posted. Assuming it's a contract there's always ways out of it. No contract is 100% binding. Especially marriage ones. One or the other person could just divorce the other.Eleas wrote: ...then the right to that willingness can't be revoked, which as I understand things is how the Domestic Discipline contract really works. If both partners are willing at that specific time, it says nothing of what they'd think at a later date.
If you know for certain that there's no limits imposed with the CCDD thing, then I have no argument. I don't condone abuse. But from the little book summary it seems to be an entirely voluntary thing on everyone's part.Eleas wrote: The acronym implies limits that, in this Domestic Discipline thing, don't exist.
I never said it did. I said people are wierdos and since it seems to be consensual than there's not much one can do about it.Stark wrote:Yeah, being into bondage and running your marriage by beating your wife are a tiny bit different. Being 'consensual' doesn't make their relationship any less fucked up.
At Marina's mention of the "Taken in Hand" movement, I looked it up on Wikipedia, and given the otherwise eerie similarity, I wouldn't be surprised if they have the same view of consent.Stark wrote:Yeah, being into bondage and running your marriage by beating your wife are a tiny bit different. Being 'consensual' doesn't make their relationship any less fucked up.
(My emphasis.)Wikipedia article wrote:Similar to some D/s relationships in BDSM, there is often blanket consent, when at the beginning of the relationship there is an understanding that this is the kind of relationship both parties really want, and consent is given for all or most things that the relationship entails, much like old-world marriage vows. There is also a strong idea of “Consensual nonconsent”, particularly when discipline is involved. There is much debate over exactly where the lines are drawn concerning this and quite what it encompasses but the general idea includes both “Consent through silence” (very common in TiH relationships in the “I actually disapprove but I will say nothing so as not to be disobedient” context) style of consent and the idea that although on the surface a woman may say no, on a deeper level and from the beginning of the relationship consent genuinely was present, and on that deeper level is still strongly given.
Indeed. The safe word is key, the difference between rape and a good time.Darth Wong wrote:At least BDSM people generally have a "safe word". These people are just scumbags who have tortured the word "consent" the same way they've mutilated the meaning of "tolerance".
Why didn't she say she'd forgotten the safeword?Eleas wrote:Indeed. The safe word is key, the difference between rape and a good time.Darth Wong wrote:At least BDSM people generally have a "safe word". These people are just scumbags who have tortured the word "consent" the same way they've mutilated the meaning of "tolerance".
Creepy story: I was told about a D/s couple in which the female was the submissive party. They liked to be fairly rough. Apparently, she forgot her safeword during play, and afterwards, traumatized, she informed her partner of what had happened. He was understandably devastated.
Panic. Just like any other animal, humans often lock up and are incapable of meaningful action when they are sufficiently scared.Straha wrote:Why didn't she say she'd forgotten the safeword?Eleas wrote:Indeed. The safe word is key, the difference between rape and a good time.Darth Wong wrote:At least BDSM people generally have a "safe word". These people are just scumbags who have tortured the word "consent" the same way they've mutilated the meaning of "tolerance".
Creepy story: I was told about a D/s couple in which the female was the submissive party. They liked to be fairly rough. Apparently, she forgot her safeword during play, and afterwards, traumatized, she informed her partner of what had happened. He was understandably devastated.
Alternatively, one could simply adopt sex practices that don't involve someone begging you to stop. Frankly, anyone who gets off on seeing someone plead for mercy is fucked in the head.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Actually, to expand on that... That is precisely the reason why it is very important to get express verbal consent (from a sober partner)for any sex act you want to perform with someone. At least with one night stands and in the beginning of a relationship. Because under certain circumstances, such as after a prior show of aggression at a party, or by sheer accidental physical intimidation, it is possible that a potential sex partner may not physically or verbally object to taking sex acts farther, even though the "play" has gone beyond their comfort zone they do not actually want it to occur.
Very, very true. Honestly I tend to agree with psychologists that think that those sexual practices are indicative of other mental problems.Darth Wong wrote:Alternatively, one could simply adopt sex practices that don't involve someone begging you to stop. Frankly, anyone who gets off on seeing someone plead for mercy is fucked in the head.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Actually, to expand on that... That is precisely the reason why it is very important to get express verbal consent (from a sober partner)for any sex act you want to perform with someone. At least with one night stands and in the beginning of a relationship. Because under certain circumstances, such as after a prior show of aggression at a party, or by sheer accidental physical intimidation, it is possible that a potential sex partner may not physically or verbally object to taking sex acts farther, even though the "play" has gone beyond their comfort zone they do not actually want it to occur.
Bear in mind I have no idea of the specifics, but if you want my honest opinion, I think she was at some point sexually abused in some way. A common way of processing sexual trauma is to take back your sexuality, which tends to broaden your tastes. It would fit with such hardcore BDSM games as well. In that case, I'd be shocked if she did not lock up as Alyrium described.Straha wrote: Why didn't she say she'd forgotten the safeword?
Truth. Such extreme behavior may happen in the heat of the moment, and it's also very common for people to get off on rape fantasies (in perpetrator or victim role). Note the distinction of it being a fantasy.Darth Wong wrote:Alternatively, one could simply adopt sex practices that don't involve someone begging you to stop. Frankly, anyone who gets off on seeing someone plead for mercy is fucked in the head.
You'd reckon right. In practice, it's fulfilling fantasies, and fantasies can be silly. I'd rather not laugh at my partner's fetishes all that much, though; there are feelings to consider.Zixinus wrote:Speaking of BDSM, I also reckon that these sessions aren't taken very seriously, now are they? I mean in afterthought or beforehand, I can't imagine that at least a one of partners can't stop giggling at the thought of what they are doing.
It might be tempting to call it forthright, but it really isn't. As long as they accept part of the bible while dismissing other parts as 'symbolic', they're being hypocrites of the highest order.Zixinus wrote:As for the original topic: it claims quite simply that it wants to line out what a true Christian marriage ought to be, exactly like the way The Bible commanded it. The Bible was written in a barbaric times, where might made right. The idea that the Bible giving basically the same idea isn't that surprising.
and ignore the very next paragraph:Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Their knee-jerk bullshit reactionism to feminism blinds them to the instructions contained in the book they profess to worship, flawed as it may be. Not only do they take the worst parts of the Bible, they ignore the good parts!Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
